The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I have read this through a couple of times and I can't discern anything resembling a viable consensus. Having been relisted twice, it is time to move on. If there are strong feelings that this should go, I suggest waiting a bit and renominating. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient contract theory[edit]

Efficient contract theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD, pinging DGG as decliner. Original reason for nomination was Appears to be a neologism generated from original research. SITH (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning to keep - I have to say that this is not my area and my terminology might get in the way. But there definitely is a fairly large area in economics called Contract theory and the goal in it will be to get an efficient allocation. It's part of Welfare economics and related to the Coase theorem. It might just need to be merged into contract theory. And, in any case, there should be major improvements made in the text. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. The concept of Pareto efficiency as applied to markets has been around for more than a century.[1] Efficient contracts can also refer to the idea allocative efficiency. GScholar and GBook searches show many sources over the decades. This article could be developed further, but a lot of the discussion of this concept already exists in the article Pareto efficiency. Merging there may provide better context for the topic. Or as Smallbones mentioned above, an efficiency section in Contract theory may be the way to go. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 19:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the two previous voters, with respect, appear to be engaging in speculation about what this topic could be without any references supporting their claims. The article reads like telephone tag from a college student's lecture notes. The Lyons reference talks of optimal incentives for both investment and trade, which is entirely different from if a contract exists, then it must be efficient due to survivorship bias in the article. There's nothing verifiable here and this should be deleted outright. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pretty much agree with Power~enwiki. The article as written doesn't do much for anybody. I'd hate to think though that a potentially important topic (or sub-topic of Contract theory) would just be swept away. But given the 3 choices of leaving up the non-article as is, merging to another article, or deletion, I'd choose one of the last 2 choices. Merging might be a case of "merge-to-delete" in any case. I generally take "merge-to-delete" as a fairly devious way of dealing with a problem, so I guess that leaves delete even though there ultimately might be a good article on the topic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, you missed my reference above. There was no speculation on the Pareto aspect. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This almost feels like it is made-up. Can't find any decent references to this term that reflect the description in the article. I am very familiar with Efficient capital markets theory, which this "theory" is trying to mimic, but have never come across "Efficient contract theory". Are we sure this is not a hoax article? Britishfinance (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Donoghue, Mark; Wright, Mark L. J.; Thornton, William Thomas (1997). William T. Thornton on the Economics of Trade Unions: An Early Contribution to Efficient Bargaining Theory. Canberra: Australian National University. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-86831-332-0. Retrieved 2019-02-10.
  2. Shane, Scott (March–April 2001). "Organizational Incentives and Organizational Mortality". Organization Science. 12 (2). Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences: 136–160. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.136.10108. Retrieved 2019-02-10.
  3. Zax, Jeffrey S. (Winter 1989). "Implications for Efficient Contract Theory". Industrial Relations. 28 (1). John Wiley & Sons: 23–31. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.1989.tb00720.x. Retrieved 2019-02-10.
  4. Hansen, Robert S. (March 2001). "Do investment banks compete in IPOs?: the advent of the "7% plus contract"". Journal of Financial Economics. Elsevier: 313–346. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00089-1. Retrieved 2019-02-10.

  Sources with quotes

  Donoghue, Mark; Wright, Mark L. J.; Thornton, William Thomas (1997). William T. Thornton on the Economics of Trade Unions: An Early Contribution to Efficient Bargaining Theory. Canberra: Australian National University. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-86831-332-0. Retrieved 2019-02-10. The book notes: The catalyst for this renewed interest was the "rediscovery" of the notion of efficient contracts between unions and employers, and particularly the contribution of McDonald and Solow (1981). Efficient contract theory, which is commonly attributed to Leontieff (1946) and Fellner (1947, 1949) but was in fact present in Edgeworth (1881), depicts unions and employers as rational agents negotiating Pareto-efficient bargains covering multiple aspects of the employment relationship. By providing a coherent model in which to view union bargaining, these models solved one of the major theoretical problems identified in Johnson's earlier survey. The sources cited are: Fellner, W. (1947) "Prices and Wages under Bilateral Monopology", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 61 (3), August, 503–532. Fellner, W. (1949) Competition Among the Few: Oligopoly and Similar Market Structures, Alfred A Knopf, New York. Leontieff, W. (1946) "The Pure Theory of the Guaranteed Annual Wage Contract", Journal of Political Economy, 54 (1), February, 54 (1), February 76–79. McDonald, I.M. and R.M. Solow (1981) "Wage Bargaining and Employment", American Economic Review, 71 (5), December 896–908. Edgeworth, F.Y. (1881) Mathematical Psychics, London Shane, Scott (March–April 2001). "Organizational Incentives and Organizational Mortality". Organization Science. 12 (2). Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences: 136–160. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.136.10108. Retrieved 2019-02-10. The article discusses survorship bias and efficient contract theory: According to these researchers, cognitive limits on information-processing capabilities preclude people from designing optimal contracts (Langlois 1992). Moreover, people design contracts of varying quality because of differences in information about how to design efficient contracts. As a result, at any point in time, the efficiency of contract provisions varies across firms, as in the form of a controlled experiment. Because contract provisions are costly to change, and because firms must recognize that policies are flawed before they can change them, those firms unfortunate enough to have selected suboptimal arrangements face a higher risk of failure. Thus, over time, efficient contracts are established because misaligned firms tend to fail, while those with efficient designs tend to survive (Alchian 1950). In a section titled "Efficient Contracting Theory", the article notes: In recent years, much empirical research has found support for the propositions of efficient contract theory (see Lafontaine and Slade 1997 and Shelanski and Klein 1995 for reviews). In particular, Williamson (1975) and his colleagues (Joskow 1987, Masten 1996) have amassed considerable evidence of transaction-cost-minimizing con-tracts in cross-sectional studies of firms with equilibrium assumptions. However, many organizational theorists (e.g., Granovetter 1985), have taken issue with the functionalism of efficient contracting arguments, contending that firms, like all institutions, do not arise automatically in the form that is optimal for external circumstances. In particular, organizational theorists have presented three challenges to efficient contracting theory. First, efficient contract theory assumes that all parties are equally able to design contracts. However, different people possess different information (Hayek 1945), creating variance among economic actors in knowledge about how best to design contracts. Moreover, these differential endowments of information also influence the cost of searching for better information (Stigler 1961) because people's endowments of information influence their ability to absorb additional information (Cohen and Levinthal 1989). Therefore, the assumption that all people are able to design optimal contracts is inconsistent with received wisdom about human capital ... Second, efficient contracting theory assumes that people consider complementarities between a wide range of contract provisions when they design contracts (Holmstrom and Milgrom 1994). Zax, Jeffrey S. (Winter 1989). "Implications for Efficient Contract Theory". Industrial Relations. 28 (1). John Wiley & Sons: 23–31. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.1989.tb00720.x. Retrieved 2019-02-10. The article notes: These results are consistent with the theory of demand stimulation. They may also offer some insight into efficient contract theory, in the context of public sector unionism. In principle, employment levels in unionized departments would exceed labor demand at negotiated compensation levels if governments and their unions were to negotiate efficient labor contracts (McDonald and Solow, 1981; Hall and Lilien, 1979). Eberts and Stone (1986) demonstrate that at least in the case of public school teachers in New York state, efficient contracts occur in the local public sector. With efficient contracts, the observed employment—compensation locus—which need not be the contract curve (Johnson, 1986—lies to the right of the actual demand curve. However, it may still have negative, infinite, or positive slope. As stronger unions attain higher points on this locus, a negative slope implies a negative relationship between union strength and employment, relative to nonunion employment levels. A vertical locus—a special case of particular interest (Hall and Lilien, 1979; Brown and Ashenfelter, 1980)—implies no relationship. The effects of associations on employment per capita and monthly payrolls per employee may be consistent with vertical loci. ... Contracts which are efficient in the strict economic sense require unions to sacrifice compensation in return for employment. Contracts which are also efficient in the political sense may eventually allow unions to increase both employment and compensation through the stimulation of demand for local public services. The positive employment effects of local public sector bargaining units suggest that local public sector unions are efficient in both senses. Hansen, Robert S. (March 2001). "Do investment banks compete in IPOs?: the advent of the "7% plus contract"". Journal of Financial Economics. Elsevier: 313–346. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00089-1. Retrieved 2019-02-10. The article notes: The findings indicate that competitive banks will not break even using 7%, all else the same. The efficient contract theory asserts, however, that all else is not the same and competition in other dimensions will adjust the IPO contract to a "7% equivalent". Here, I investigate two implications of this theory. The article later notes: The evidence thus far favors the efficient contract theory over the cartel theory. Nevertheless, there remains the important prospect that a subtler form of collusion is present that is undetectable by the above tests.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow efficient contract theory to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Efficient contract theory" is an established term. It has been the subject of research such as the March 2001 article by Robert S. Hansen in the Journal of Financial Economics. The definition given in the Wikipedia article about efficient contract theory discusses survivorship bias. Survivorship bias is one of the applications of efficient contract theory as discussed by Scott Shane's March–April 2001 Organization Science article. The article does not violate Wikipedia:No original research. But it can be improved by having a broadened scope to discuss the general topic and other applications of the concept such as efficient contracts between public sector unions and governments (see Jeffrey S. Zax's Winter 1989 article in Industrial Relations).

  Cunard (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The above are widely dispirate uses of the term and re-inforce the point that the term, as defined in this article, does not exist. In fact, it is not even clear that these sources are trying to create a defined term, outside of the phrase "an efficient contract". If "Efficient contract" was a defined term (as per "Efficient markets" theory), there would be loads of references with "Efficient contract" theory in the title and a description that meets the description in this article. However, there are none. This is WP:SYN (and largely made-up). Britishfinance (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is already a WP article on Contract theory that does not mention "Efficient contract theory". Here is investopedia (which has no "Efficient contract theory" entry) on "Contract theory" – again, no mention of "Efficient contract theory" [2]. Here is an article on the 2016 winners of a Nobel Prize for "Contract theory", and again, no mention of "Efficient contract theory" [3]. The only reference in Google scholar is to the 1996 paper referred to in the article [4]. After that, nothing. Britishfinance (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closers. The above needs careful reading, as this article has a specific definition taken from one 1996 paper that was never adopted by other sources. Arguements have been put for other uses of "Efficient Contract" but these are different definitions, and uses (some are not definitions but just use of the phrase "an efficient contract"). Britishfinance (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Wolf[edit]

Radio Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources for this digital radio station - created by an editor with a declared COI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Colin M (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable radio station - does not meet GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shostak[edit]

Robert Shostak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Verifiability / BLP policy violations. Probably notable, but there are no sources for any of the biographical information, only his research papers. The lack of sourcing and the promotional tone suggests this was written by an associate of Shostak and it is not verifiable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for nominator @Power~enwiki: Why is deletion preferable to removing the unverifiable content, or just stubifying? Bakazaka (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I could find publicly, all I could verify was that he was a co-author of the paper "The Byzantine Generals Problem", and is now affiliated with Vocera. An article stubbed down to that length would not demonstrate notability or that he is a public figure, and sourcing to press releases like [5] wouldn't be good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reaching Agreement" paper (cited >2000 times) as well as several other papers cited in the hundreds of times each, as well as the "Byzantine Generals" paper (cited >5000 times!) are together enough for a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1, in my opinion. Reducing the article to the "Interactive Consistency and Byzantine Fault Tolerance" section, which is a more or less accurate description of the academic contribution, would be verifiable (paper contents + citation metrics for impact) and would show why he passes WP:ACADEMIC#1 with a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". Bakazaka (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I agree that the article text needs some aggressive pruning, the subject is verifiably notable under WP:ACADEMIC#1, as a search of Google Scholar will attest. Additionally, much of the SRI-related material is also covered in Donald MacKenzie's MIT Press book Mechanizing Proof, pages 269-272, and searching under "Rob Shostak" finds mid-to-late-1980s coverage in (e.g.) Computerworld, Byte, Infoworld, Personal Computing, etc of his work for companies like Ansa and Borland. So there's also a good case for WP:GNG. With notability easily established, the rest of the article issues are reasons to edit, not reasons to delete. Bakazaka (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1. I also agree that some pruning would be an improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks very much for your comments and searches. The sections on the Ansa/Paradox/Vocera have now been substantially pruned and merged into a single section. I think it’s important to keep this in order to provide a rounded picture of the subject. In addition, some additional citations were added (including the MacKenzie book that Bakazaka found – good catch) to improve verifiability. Richardlschwartz (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If editors have concerns that there are indeed copyright issues with this article, I suggest listing it at WP:COPYPROB. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes' list of the world's highest-paid dead celebrities[edit]

Forbes' list of the world's highest-paid dead celebrities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think it's a copyvio issue to include the full lists, and there's no other content in the article. The only independent coverage is simply re-stating the list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Similiar to Forbes' list of the world's highest-paid athletes it has content, sources from forbes and other reliabe sites. It is a long list and it is about a major topic. So it no doubt deserve its own list. If it does not for some weird reason, it should then instead get redirected Forbes Celebrity 100. Awardmaniac (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per Awardmaniac. Note, ff there are real copyvio issues, you don't need AfD and can go direct to CSD G12, or just delete the information directly. Britishfinance (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems the content is well sourced and the links are free and public use. No reason to see any copy vio issues. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - good refs. Covers WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into related articles. As per the discussion. Sandstein 16:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast East (Dáil constituency)[edit]

Belfast East (Dáil constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should there be separate pages for this and similar pages? They are the only pages that are doubled up in this way of all constituencies in Northern Ireland used for the Second Dáil, or even of constituencies in the future state of Ireland where UK constituencies served as constituencies for the First Dáil. Instead, I would propose adding a note or paragraph to each of Belfast East (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency), etc., to indicate that were considered to be constituencies in the Second Dáil. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC) The other pages I am nominating are:[reply]

Belfast North (Dáil constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Belfast South (Dáil constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Belfast West (Dáil constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Queen's University of Belfast (Dáil constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Merge into an article titled something like Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland. I don't see there being much benefit to having articles on constituencies that were used for a single election. The same would go for all of those which have been recently created for the 1917 elections in Russia, which I have been considering nominating for deletion too. Number 57 15:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: what are your views on this? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference would still be to delete these, as the proposed Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland could probably be better addressed with a line in one of the pages like 1918 Irish general election and 1921 Irish elections, given that these were constituencies created for the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and House of Commons of Northern Ireland respectively. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to the respective NI Parliament articles. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Largely the same as Scolaire. Mention in the article on Second Dáil and redirect the articles to the relevant NI parliament articles. Valenciano (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a section on the Second Dáil to each of the 11 constituencies in the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1921. That should hopefully satisfy the Merge proposal. If agreed then, we can now Redirect the articles proposed for deletion. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Per above, one-time existence does not mean there must be a separate article for it. Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all. All are thin on prose, there is little commentary, and they would fit together well. This was never a deletion proposal, there is no case for deleting any. There are nearly no editor comments on any of the talks pages, one exception being User:PatGallacher's sole post "This looks like an artificial article which should not be a separate article from Belfast North (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency). PatGallacher (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• After what I hope have been constructive edits elsewhere, specifically to the pages for the 9 Belfast constituencies in 1918 (Belfast Woodvale (UK Parliament constituency), etc.), there are now no links on any articles across Wikipedia to any of the pages I proposed above for deletion. I'd make the case then for deletion, but have no fundamental objection to a redirect. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the information on these pages should continue on a merged page. For attribution reasons, this means merge and redirect, do not delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW czar 03:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Paulsen[edit]

Roland Paulsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass any of our subject specific notability guidelines, nor WP:GNG. A loose noose (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So, an AfD nomination for a five-hour old article that is clearly a translation-in-progress of the article at sv.wikipedia [6], which has sources and also notes that he won the Johan Hansson Prize [7]? Bakazaka (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree, this is over the top. With 3 academic texts, two published in both Swedish and English, he is highly likely to meet WP:NAUTHOR, let alone considering whether he meets WP:ACADEMIC. On what basis does the Nom claim that he "Does not appear to pass any of our subject specific notability guidelines"? If there is concern about it not being a finished article, just move it to draft space, don't send it to AfD! RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: I agree with you that this is a ridiculous deletion nomination, as I voted to keep the Polina Kuklina article as well. I have said before and strongly believe that too much deletion for no good reason is in no one's best interest. I also don't understand why people are often putting deletion tags on very credible articles as well, which might make a lot less people want to create articles, which we surely don't want. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: won a notable prize so probably passes WP:PROF someone just needs to translate it. If nobody does, send it to draft. SITH (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please don't take articles that are clearly in the process of being created to AfD? There's no harm in waiting a week. Beyond that, the Swedish article gives plenty of sources, in addition to the ones used here. For contextualisation, Paulsen is somewhat of a household name in Sweden, being at the heart of the Swedish debate around the concept of work. He's – as the Swedish sources indicate – regularly either part of or referred to in the national debate about current practices around work, as well as the future of work. Strong keep. /Julle (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the reasons given by people who are in favor in keeping this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW Keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wireless sensor network#Platforms. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Area Tracking System[edit]

Wide Area Tracking System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a twenty year old prototype. I’m not sure it’s notable on its own, and think it probably needs merging into an article with more current info, but I’m not sure what. Mccapra (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As I going to agree with the nominator, the would be marked on my coneseus.Sheldybett (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wireless sensor network#Platforms. Doesn't appear to have garnered the sufficient coverage to be notable independently (yet). SITH (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 03:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iype Cherian[edit]

Iype Cherian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google news comes up with zero sources about this person [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This Google Scholar search brings up several publications, but they may not be enough to establish notability. He holds leadership positions, but not the position of chairperson or president, in a scholarly group that does not yet have an article, Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough citations to pass WP:Prof in highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Colin M (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His publications have very low citation counts and there's a lack of significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. bd2412 T 02:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falkensteen[edit]

Falkensteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Manor house, does not appear to be a historical landmark or notable building. A loose noose (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The main building (from 1775) and a barn are listed on the Danish registry of protected buildings and places and it is both covered in various books about historic buildings and more general sources such as Den Store Danske Encyklopædi. Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Obviously meets requirements. Even thoughthefact that it's on the Danish Regisry was not in the article when it was listed for deletion, enough information was certainly present a tthat point to show very probable notability . DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a heritage listed building, clearly meets criteria of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. enough said. --Doncram (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No need to proceed with this. Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See reasoning above. /Julle (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks be be both a historical landmark and a notable building. Grey Wanderer (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, without prejudice against re-creation in two years. If requested, I will gladly refund this to userspace or draft space, if there are editors willing to maintain it there until such time as it become appropriate to restore to mainspace. bd2412 T 21:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in film[edit]

2022 in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL / too early to create this page - all of these films (save one) are untitled, and release dates >2 years out are incredibly likely to change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is it certain that the films listed on the page will actually be released in 2022? No. So, until 2021, we should leave the page redlinked. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let's wait until the vast majority of "Untitled (studio) (genre) (type of film) film" films actually have titles and are in production, please (and Tom Cruise could still die unexpectedly and MI:8 may not be a thing in 2022. Shocking, I know!). WP:TOOSOON, WP:NODEADLINE, WP:CHILL (happy to know that one exists!). Nate • (chatter) 04:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing meaningful in this list, this level of crystalballery does no one any good. PC78 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pretty much everything on the list is an untitled project. Wait until something a bit more solid is known for at least a handful of films, then recreate. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too early for such a page.TH1980 (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Urgench State University. Sandstein 16:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urganch davlat universiteti[edit]

Urganch davlat universiteti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure of the policy with articles like this, but I am pretty sure we can't host articles in... Uzbek? A loose noose (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under A10 as recently created article that duplicates Urgench State University. A2 also possible, depending on how close an admin thinks this is to the article in Uzbek Wikipedia, which covers the same ground but is not identical. Bakazaka (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or just delete it as copyvio, since all of the non-English text appears to be copy/pasted from the university's About page: [9]. Bakazaka (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Urgench State University. I've created a similar redirect at Urganch Davlat Universiteti. Flapjacktastic (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flapjacktastic, do you mean a redirect that keeps the editing history, or a delete-then-redirect? Bakazaka (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a copyvio problem in the edit history that can't easily be fixed with hiding parts of the history, then I'd be fine with a delete-then-redirect. I'm only thinking that the latinized Uzbek seems like a useful redirect for readers looking for the university: I can see it in English results of a Google search. Flapjacktastic (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sileo (package manager)[edit]

Sileo (package manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources. Refs are the various dev's twitter accounts and Reddit threads. Initially released in December - Google search doesn't find substantial coverage. The best ref I found was [10] power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google's not turning up anything useful. Power~enwiki's best ref appears to be a computer science student's blog; I couldn't find anything better. No sources = not notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant secondary coverage found. As something that first closed beta-ed 3 months ago, even if it's WP:RISING it's unlikely sources will be available for some time yet. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as meeting G11 and A7 Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaganti naveen[edit]

Chaganti naveen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. Does not meet any of our notability requirements. Vanity page. A loose noose (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBIO. The article contains no reliable sources, and there is no other coverage in reliable sources either. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Autobiography by User:Chagantinaveen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails N - no RS, youtuber vanity. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. Frankly, should probably be speedily deleted under criteria A7. Novusuna ^talk 04:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Novusuna about A7, fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no claims of significance or notability, added A7 and G11 Atlantic306 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Jois[edit]

Archana Jois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns for this actress. Appears to have appeared in only one film K.G.F: Chapter 1. Refs are all broken even after an attempt to fix them, [11] contradicts the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to show that WP:NACTOR is met, it's just WP:TOOSOON for an article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not much to look here. Dheerajmpai23 (talk)
• Delete. PROMO article that fails NACTOR. Britishfinance (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technology company - Imposed Fines[edit]

Technology company - Imposed Fines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be an article. Ran it through CSD but did not have a suitable reason. Decliner suggested AfD. A loose noose (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This is not an article. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I tried that, and DGG rejected it and told me to bring it to AfD. Which seems kinda weird to me, too, but there you have it. A loose necktie (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if in any doubt, I suggest bringing it here. I've done that since I started 12 years ago; I was so advised by experienced editors then, and I so advise others. Even if it's deleted speedy at the afd, at least one additional person will have looked at it. DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Okay, but didn't the "experienced" editors back then have less than two years of "experience" under their belts? And now that at least three of us have looked at it, can't we just speedy it as a non-article?) A loose necktie (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a combination of IAR and A7. But it can be closed now anyway. J947 ^(c), at 03:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A table is also an article, see the featured list Periodic table (detailed cells). This is also a notable topic, see [12], [13]. wumbolo ^^^ 08:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TNT case. Poorly formed title and content. Listing only a single small fine? Britishfinance (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Vaswani[edit]

Dinesh Vaswani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, I've tried, but I just can't see how this person meets our notability requirements. The first three refs don't mention him at all; others are primary documents – a certificate, a letter. I see no independent in-depth coverage that would either justify having an encyclopaedia article about hm, or enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An extraordinary amount of detail, but unfortunately no reliable sources to back it up. I see no evidence of independent coverage establishing notability. Colin M (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Close to an A7 except that a COI has gone to great lengths to write a huge amount of non-notable detail on a non-notable person. If I started editing this article and removing the PROMO and unrefenced by indepdendant RS, it would be almost empty. Bio-spam. Britishfinance (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SIGVOC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CYM Group[edit]

CYM Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CYM Group is a student club formed in 2009 at the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City to encourage critical thinking. Basically it is a non-notable student club, however, in 2011 it broke the Guinness World Record by making the largest jigsaw puzzle. For this it received media attention. So the question is, does a non-notable student club become notable just by achieving a Guinness World Record and some publicity, or should the article be merged into the university article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only (vaguely) historically notable for one thing; no recent evidence of notability. Not everyone who appears in the Guinness book of records is deserving of a WP article, even if they have received some media coverage at the time. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Per mean as custard. Lapablo (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, without prejudice against recreation if broader reliably sourced notability should arise in the future. bd2412 T 16:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Myers (restaurateur)[edit]

Christopher Myers (restaurateur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Dewritech (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails BIO, no evidence of notability. Ravenswing 23:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the RS that I can see on him are limited to the Boston area; beyond that, he is not notable. Britishfinance (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nivesh.com[edit]

Nivesh.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotionalism and WP:CORPDEPTH concerns. The only independent and credible source appears to be the Times of India reporting on fund-raising, which is insufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator, Niveshmutualfundsforall, appears to have an obvious WP:COI as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – COI becomes pretty blatant when the article's lead contains the phrase "...providing a paperless experience for our partners and clients..." The article sounds straight out of an advertisement. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G11. Blatant promotional article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This is an advertisement. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional content filled with funding round sources. Lapablo (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Nothing more than G11 self-promotion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not notable. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasio Celia[edit]

Athanasio Celia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. The ref-bombing is largely to uploaded translations to archive.org, which are unverifiable UGC. [14] is a trivial mention of him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This artist has not received significant coverage from a reliable source. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable artist.--Darwinek (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As painter he is clearly notable, because he is the founder of a new painting style. As art expert he is clearly notable, because his reports were of global interest. And as author he is clearly notable, because his books are registered in university libraries. 4evayoung77 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. If he is "clearly notable", then where are the reliable secondary sources on him and his work (besides press-release like articles)? Furthermore, having someone's books registered in (any) library means just that the books are there, nothing else. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Seems to be part of a cross-wiki promotional effort. Celia has got some trivial references as he was involved as "an expert" in the authenticity verification of a supposedly Van Gogh sketchbook (see this) found by the Greek writer on astrology, occult themes, and esotericism, Doretta Peppa. "[T]he Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam has discredited" (cf. "Experts fall out over Van Gogh's 'last painting'", The Guardian, May 19, 2008) the Peppa's sketchbook. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS2. In the article it is written that "[h]is study on the notebook was published in a chapter of the book “The Notebook of Vincent”, for which Athanasio Celia also wrote the preface" (cf. the Greek edition, and the international edition of the book). That's true, but this book is a self-publication of Dorreta Peppa, the founder/owner of the supposedly Van Gohg sketchbook, since her husband Giorgos Alexelis is the owner of the EPOS Press (see in this article in the mainsteam Greek daily Kathimerini: "ο Γιώργος Αλεξέλης των εκδόσεων Επος [συνεκδότης του τίτλου και σύζυγος της συγγραφέως]"), a publishing house specialising in printing books by Peppas and Celia! (see [15]) ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an indirect question to me, then please listen to his interviews with BBC and Reuters and read the corresponding studies which include the information you need. There is a list of museums (ref. 54) which can provide catalogues on request. And in regard of books, it really matters in which library a book is adopted...4evayoung77 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think that is right for a wikipedian to try to diminish a really serious person through third parties...4evayoung77 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we do not try to diminish anyone; we try to establish notability by third party sources. it is the way things are done here, based on a policy called WP:Notability. (If you do not like it, we have a policy for that too: WP:IDONTLIKEIT.) We also give no value to the fact that a library has soemone's books. The current notability policy kind of works, seeing as Wikipedia is the fourth or fifth most popular website in the world.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable and no reliable secondary sources-Kalogeropoulos (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Important notice. The first deletion of the subject was 12 years ago - in 2007 . And the article was deleted, because an editor had wrote it without to use any references at all. This notice is very important, because the first deletion's record is now blanked - I don't know who has blanked it and why. But without the present notice could easily came up the impression that a similar article was deleted, like the very well documented present article. 4evayoung77 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that was just a courtesy blanking of the last page version. You can see the discussion in the page history.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That link was necessary from the beginning of the voting, and because of that - in my opinion - the current process isn't valid (this is not a personal mention against you or against any other editor). I suppose that editors who are active also in the Greek Wikipedia, wouldn't have vote against the article, if they knew about that link from the beginning. 4evayoung77 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on the promotional intent, I ignored the article sources and did a general search. I saw one Reuters article where he was quoted. Four pages of Google results later, all I am seeing is unreliable vanity-published wikis and books for sale pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible to ignore dozens of references of the article? 4evayoung77 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete The Reuters interview isn't enough, and all the auction results don't get us anywhere for notability. But they do indicate that he probably has had an exhibition record that may have generated enough critical reception. I did a search of academic databases, and came up with nothing. Claiming "Verticalism" is a "movement" needs some legit WP:RS to say the least. If we were to keep it, it would need a WP:TNT. --Theredproject (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all the respect Professor, he had some more interviews which were broadcasted globally (ref.26, 27, 28). And I think that there is no claim in the article that "Verticalism" is a movement, rather that it is "a new form of artistic expression" which relies on a new artistic theory (ref. 8). That theory is published in his fourth publication (p.25-26). 4evayoung77 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4evayoung77: Stop hounding every single person who is posting here. Apparently your user profile says you are a district attorney; please stop cross-examining everyone here. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is bad form, and more importantly it is doing the exact opposite of your goal.--Theredproject (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no goal, I only defend the article. But to punish the subject, because you maybe don't like my identity makes no sense. 4evayoung77 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4evayoung77, I second the suggestion to hold back on further comments. You have made your position very clear. Wikiepdia is a volunteer project and this is a very tiny portion of the overall business at hand. Wasting everyone's time by badgering them repeatedly is considered to be disruptive editing. We heard you, and the closing admin will assess the arguments made by everyone. Consider yourself warned that your hounding of every comment is disruptive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1991 Whitby municipal election[edit]

1991 Whitby municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1994 Whitby municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two articles about municipal elections in a suburban town, not really offering any substantive content to make them worth maintaining. They both completely elide the mayoral race, the regional council seats and three of the four local wards, offering results tables only for one ward race -- and the 1991 table just says the winner was elected, without actually including the vote totals at all, while the 1994 table just says she was acclaimed. All of the sourcing in both articles, further, is parked entirely on followup mini-biographies of non-notable people: 1991's on Judi Longfield's non-notable competitor, and 1994's on the non-notable person who was selected to replace her after she resigned from the municipal council to run for Parliament. Which means neither of these actually has any real reason to exist: they're not offering any actual substance about the election, but both exist solely because Longfield won the parliamentary election and served as an MP — so in actual practice, they're really just functioning as a way to sneak minibios of non-notables into Wikipedia under the guise of event articles rather than as properly sourced or substantive articles about elections that are noteworthy in their own right.
WikiProject Canada's established consensus around Ontario municipal elections is to do one merged article per census division rather than separate articles about each individual town or city, so no prejudice against the creation of 1991 Durham Region municipal elections if somebody can actually find adequate sourcing to properly support more than just one town-level ward in Whitby -- but since these are missing eight of the nine offices that were actually up for election in Whitby, and are parking their sourcing entirely on overcovering non-notable people instead of on any actual substance about the election itself, they're not useful to maintain in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I prodded this 13 year old article as it is woefully inadequate. Whether the subject is notable is highly doubtful, and no one in all this time has even attempted to make the article cover even the most basic aspects of the subject. Articles like this should be speedyable. Fram (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever standards support the inclusion of articles on elections, they can not possibly be met by the content of these articles. bd2412 T 21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Encounter (2011 film). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Encounter (franchise)[edit]

The Encounter (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable franchise. The first film has some coverage, and the PureFlix TV series has slight coverage in Christian media [19], but there's nothing which suggests this is a notable franchise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the The Encounter (2011 film) in with this one. At least then all the refs and info is together. As it is this is highly duplicative. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as Legacypac mentioned. Not even all parts of the franchise have their own articles yet. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Makes no sense to treat the page of the first installment like a franchise page, which is why I did it.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested in earlier comments as not yet notable for a standalone article, when or if it becomes so it can be split out again, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI am not sure this how you leave a comment here if not please let me know on my talk page. I don't really care what is chosen to do but I would be satisfied if The page establish that of the first installment established it is a film and a franchise by the same name type of thing.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keshan Perera[edit]

Keshan Perera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NMUSICIAN. IMDb is not an acceptable source and the other references, whilst in Sinhalese, are either mentions in passing or primary sources (i.e. interviews with the subject). It also fails WP: ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 16:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Doesn't meet WP:COMPOSER but at the same time, I'm not sure most composers from Sri Lanka would. Actaudio (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Pillai[edit]

M. S. Pillai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source I can find is the linked official site which doesn't mention his recently-asserted death. It appears that he fails WP:PROF, however, even if he has recently died, BLP still applies to the recently deceased, and I don't think there's enough coverage to warrant an article. Opting for AFD over PROD to allow input from users who may speak languages in which better sources could exist. SITH (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see a few sources - [20][21][22], at the moment I'm not sure that is sufficient, but if more turn up he may qualify under GNG. Hzh (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PROMO for the Sadhana Centre for Management & Leadership Development, an outfit about which I know absolutely nothing except that we do not have a page for it. Page was created by an SPA. It makes no claim to notability and has no sources and no links. It has been tagged for improvement since 2009. And while I appreciate Nom's impulse to await someone who speaks the language, everyone in India with a high school education knows English, and there will be exceedingly few notable figures in India who cannot be sourced in English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everything I can find about him connects to SCMHRD and SCMLD, which he founded. I was unable to find the independent coverage needed to show that WP:GNG is met. My search in Google Scholar found more than one M.S. Pillai, but the others were in chemistry or medicine. I did not find anything to show me that WP:NPROF, or any other SNG, is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Hodges[edit]

Houston Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This person appears to have accomplished much as a Presbyterian minister and he is mentioned frequently and fondly in church publications, though little has been written about him in reliable secondary sources. User talk:Jhhhodges created a biography about this person in 2015 which was speedy deleted under WP:A7. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The creator of this page, User talk:John hodgie, and User talk:Jhhhodges are most likely the same person and also likely have a WP:COI with the subject. The article also fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to notability for a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 03:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrabank, N.A.[edit]

Terrabank, N.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:COMPANY) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - would need a couple more reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Olshanetsky[edit]

David Olshanetsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a WP:BLP that contains 1 third party source. Quick google-fu only shows articles that talk about the same event as the bbc article and interviews with the subject. Additionally, the article is heavily promotional. Almost every sentence is non-encyclopedic and most of the claims are not backed up by even the unreliable sources. For example "He is the first Tumblr influencer to have approved for the new partner program with the campaign starting at V Festival with support from ASOS" is not backed up by any source at all and just links to a post from the concert on the subject's Tumblr page. If I were to remove all non-sourced content from the article, the only thing left would be a sentence based on the bbc article, and that is not nearly enough to qualify for WP:GNG. SWL36 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Originally looking at the article, the sources are terrible. The only acceptable one is the BBC article. But with a search, there's coverage in Metro, V Magazine, Gay Times, Billboard, and Cosmo. Those sources talk about the anit-homophobia work, his tumblr, starting a podcast, signing a book deal, and being an influencer. --Kbabej (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate Anis Ahmed Khan[edit]

Advocate Anis Ahmed Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Subject covered in Pakistan Today, The Express Tribune, and The News International. I would say that this should be expanded rather than deleted. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hessian cuisine. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duckefett[edit]

Duckefett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly non-notable food item. I was intrigued by the description and tried to find some sources, but I'm only finding bare mentions and recipes. Sadly having to conclude that this may not actually be notable. valereee (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Restoring the AfD since it it was closed G7 speedy deleted, but then the author requested REFUND Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Duckefett shortly after saying "I was actually wondering if it would turn out to be notable after all, thought maybe the AfD process would prove that". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to be clear, I nom'd orginally, then requested refund after original article author requested speedy. I'm not the original author of the article. I'm hoping someone perhaps in Germany could find sources that I'm not seeing. valereee (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a very short Deutsche Welle article with cooking recipe about it (here). The sauce is also mentioned in the book Meine Kindheit in Nordhessen 1943-1950 (My childhood in North Hesse 1943-1950) by Walter Steinmetz. Gbooks snippet-preview p.73 (here) "This is a simple, typical North Hessian food from a ..." (end of preview), so i don't really know hom much in-depth it goes. If notability can not be established, redirecting or merging it to Hessian cuisine could work. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyamo Kurosawa, I've asked at the reference desk if someone can help us find a longer clip of that source. I don't read German, so I'll let you know if I get an answer! valereee (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Received this from reference desk:

I couldn't get a better preview, but managed to tease out some more text by repeatedly searching for the last phrase of each search result: "Das ist ein einfaches, typisch nordhessisches Essen aus einer Mehlschwitze mit ausgelassenem Speck und darin gebratenen Zwiebeln, dazu gab es Pellkartoffeln. Manchmal aß ich bei den Schneidersleuten am Tisch mit. Der Geruch dieses..." [2] "Der Geruch dieses Duckefetts lag mir immer sehr in der Nase. An Gerüche kann man sich noch lange gut erinnern. Der Schneider hatte nicht nur seine Schneiderstube in Riede. An einem Tag in der Woche war er auch in Kassel, in der Dörnbergstraße. Dort hatte er sich ein Zimmer angemietet für seine Kasseler Kundschaft. „Da kann euer Junge ruhig mal mit hinfahren", meinte der Meister zu meinem Vater. Wenn der Schneider von seiner Kasseler Kundschaft sprach, dann bemühte er sich immer hochdeutsch zu sprechen. Die Kunden in Kassel waren irgendwie vornehmere Leute als die Dorfbewohner". [3]

Some further sources: my grasp of German is somewhat limited, but try: Du Stadt im grünen Grund by Manfred Knierim. Deutschland: das Kochbuch by Alfons Schuhbeck. Hessisch kriminelle Weihnacht: 25 Krimis und Rezepte edited by Ursula Schmid-Speer, Anne Hasse.

valereee (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Valereee:, thanks for finding that. Basically only the first sentence of the quote is about Duckefett; together with the Deutsche Welle article it might pass as a "weak keep" for me (but rn im undecided, as merging is also an option). For the other sources: Du Stadt im grünen Grund seems to be published by a self-publishing service, so it's somewhat questionable as a source per WP:SPS; Deutschland: das Kochbuch is a cookbook by famous chef Alfons Schuhbeck, which has a recipe for Duckefett. Hessisch kriminelle Weihnacht: 25 Krimis und Rezepte is a mix of crime fiction novel and cookbook, Duckefett is mentioned a few times and there also is a recipe included. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyamo Kurosawa, hm, doesn't sound promising...maybe merge into Hessian cuisine, as you'd suggested?valereee (talk)

@Valereee: yeah, seems to be the best option here. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hessian cuisine per comments above, as sourcing is too thin for a standalone article. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that all remaining problems with the article can be fixed by normal editing. At the worst case, editors have suggested restoring a redirect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.H.U.I.[edit]

P.O.H.U.I. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Translated page from the Romanian Wikipedia. Very poor state and not really notable. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: firstly, I think the "Romania Top 100" and "Media Forest" charts are one and the same, because in 2013 the only chart in Romania was the Airplay Top 100, compiled by Media Forest. That chart was broadcast on the Romanian radio station Kiss FM, and the song certainly reached at least number three on that chart, because there is an archived copy of Kiss FM's podcast of the chart of 9 June 2013 [23] - you have to download the podcast in order to be able to listen to it, and the song comes in at 2:18:10. But the Moldovan chart position can't be verified, and unless someone can come up with some good sources in Romanian, a redirect to Carla's Dreams seems to be the best option, as the band is unquestionably notable in Moldova and Romania. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Redirect: The charts are indeed messed up in that article; for an overview of the charts operated in Romania, see Romanian music charts. The song attained some commercial success, but it isn't enough for a stand-alone article in my opinion. Redirect as well. Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - worth noting that there seems to be a lot more results in Russian (the name of the song means "I don't give an F" in Russian). My Russian is not nearly good enough to contribute to sourcing, but perhaps we can get some native input? Skirts⁸⁹ 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Carla's Dreams as it is a viable search term, but it does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. Aoba47 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The song charted in Romania, so it is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Has the song received any coverage from third-party, reliable sources? If so, could you please either list them here or include them in the article? You are correct that charting does indicate some notability, but it only indicates a limited sense of notability. Chart placements can easily be communicated in the artist's main page, without the need for a separate article. I would suggest that either "keep" voters address this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - After some research, I think the song is indeed notable. The song charted in Moldova as well as in Romania, per Eastmain's comment above. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless of the decision of this AfD, I have gone through the article to better translate into native English. Skirts⁸⁹ 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Eastmain: @Skirts89: the problem is that while we can prove that the song charted in two countries, there are no sources at all so far for any of the text... if we can't locate any sources to provide some prose for the article, I'm not sure we should be keeping permastubs which consist of just two chart placings and nothing else – it's better just to include that information in a discography table. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above message. I posted a similar comment as a response to one of the "keep" votes above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The discussion was split early on, but after Julle improved the article, nobody new to the debate suggested it should be deleted, and only one person argued against notability being demonstrated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High15[edit]

High15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately referenced article about a band notable only for appearing in, but not winning, a reality show. As always, competing in a reality show is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, but literally nothing else stated here passes WP:NMUSIC either -- and even the referencing is parked on one video clip of their appearance itself on the reality show's own self-published website and one short blurb, which is not enough media coverage to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - They have participated in both Talang and Melodifestivalen. Their song was released yesterday and will without a doubt chart on Sverigetopplistan on Friday. Also per criteria 1 on WP:NMUSIC, by friday they will cover Criteria 2 of the same guideline. They also cover Criteria 10 and 12 of WP:NMUSIC as of today. Clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article states exactly nothing about them that is even remotely relevant to either NMUSIC #10 or NMUSIC #12. Criterion #10 does not cover off just any performance of any song on any television show, but pertains only to recording the primary theme song to a television series — and criterion #12 does not cover off every single appearance as a performer on a reality show, but only applies to news or documentary content profiling the band as a subject. Competing on a reality show and losing is not a notability criterion at all — the winner of the reality show is the only person who ever gets to have "was on a reality show" be the article-clinching notability claim in and of itself, while everybody else who competed but lost gets to have an article only if and when they have passed the same other notability benchmarks as any other musician who was never on the show at all. And releasing a single is not a notability freebie just because you predict that the song will become a hit in the future — if it hasn't already been a major hit single, then crystal balling its prospects of becoming one in the future counts for nothing. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "future" is in 5 days. Secondly the group covers several sections of WP:NMUSIC as established above. Also, Melodifestivalen isnt a reality show, it is an established singing competition on primetime TV. BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are interpreting the NMUSIC criteria incorrectly: neither NMUSIC #10 nor NMUSIC #12 covers off appearing as a non-winning contestant on a music competition show at all. And for the purposes of NMUSIC, there is no significant distinction between a "reality show" and an "established singing competition on primetime TV", either — because the reality show is also a singing competition n primetime TV, and the notability criterion for that is still winning it, not just being on it and losing. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As BabbaQ writes. Only the performance yesterday on Melodifestivalen should be enough. The rest is a bonus. Adville (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They competed in Melodifestivalen and failed to advance to the next round. That is not enough — notability from Melodifestivalen derives from winning it, not just from being present. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melodifestivalen is not a reality series. It is an established singing competition on primetime TV. Secondly, I have explained that High15 covers Criteria 10 and 12 of WP:NMUSIC. And that by friday the groups song will have charted. That is why Adville correctly !voted Keep.BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Adville for adding an additional good source to the article.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I've already explained above that you are interpreting both NMUSIC 10 and 12 incorrectly. Criterion 10 refers to performing the primary theme song to a television series, not just to making an appearance on it — criterion 10 notabilizes nobody appearing on any singing or talent competition as a competitor, and applies only to the composer of the theme music the show uses over its opening credits. And criterion 12 does not magically hand every contestant on a singing competition a notability pass either — it applies only to bands or musicians who have been the subjects of dedicated news or documentary specials specifically about them. Simply appearing on a singing competition but losing does not pass NMUSIC #10, and it does not pass NMUSIC #12: those are both for completely different things that have nothing to do with competing in any form of singing or talent competition but failing to win it. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, about Talang, I agree. That is wannabees competing. Nothing more. You lose you are out.

Melodifestivalen, however, is different. You are not in it without being someone. Maybe on your way up and notable enough to be asked to performe. Or you already are up. If you look at the land of original, Sweden and svwp, all artists/groups performing in Melodifestivalen are notable to get an article. (Not every member in a group). This makes them notable enough for an article in svwp. If you are not familiar with this part of Swedish culture, which has fostered a lot of our Great international artists, I understand your questions. But some research how it work from you will clarify it. Best regards. Adville (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, that is incorrect. Melodifestivalen is a "major miusic competition", as discussed in NMUSIC. If a musician ends up in first, second, or third place, that means they meet that criterion. According to the sources, they ended up in 6th place. It's clear-cut, I'm afraid. Maybe any band that performs in schlagerfestivalen is notable enough for a sv.wp article. That has zero bearing on their notability on en.wp. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as after their #46 debut on Spotify they'll surely make it to the Swedish charts on Friday, but for the next Mello contestants I'd suggest to wait a few days until the criteria are met to create the article. A 6th place out of 7 and a talent show participation aren't enough for relevancy IMO. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC) read below. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @BabbaQ:, @Merynancy: it looks like the song didn't chart on the Swedish Top 100 after all... in light of that, does it affect your vote above? Richard3120 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still charted on Spotify 200 and anyway cover several sections of WP:NMUSIC. So my !vote remains unchanged.BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the song failed to chart and the band does not meet the relevancy criteria. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, and isn't close to meeting WP:GNG. Participating in a music contest is not sufficient. If you think it ought to be, start a discussion and request to have the policy changed, at the relevant noticeboard. --bonadea contributions talk 12:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article subject covers point 1, point 10 and point 12 of WP:NMUSIC. It is a guideline established by the Wikipedia community. Any opinion that differs from that are POV and POV never trumps guidelines. This article should be kept, if we follow our own set guidelines. BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says nothing about them that passes point 10 or point 12 — as I already pointed out above, the only way anything stated here passes either of those criteria is if you misinterpret the criteria to mean something completely different than what they were actually intended to cover. #10 covers off writing a show's theme song, not appearing on a reality show as a non-winning performer, and #12 covers off being the subject of news or documentary content, not appearing on a reality show as a non-winning performer. And all of the sources in the article are either (a) non-independent (appearing on a reality show does not translate into a notability freebie just because the reality show uploads a video clip of the performance to its own self-published website), or (b) glancing namechecks of their existence in articles that aren't about them — so passage of #1 isn't being demonstrated by these sources either. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They are not well known only because of semi-successful participation in Talang and Melodifestivalen, but came to the public eye through their Youtube channel. There are plenty of (non-trivial) coverage, mainly relating to Talang or Melodifestivalen but not exclusively. I've added more information and references, and I think the article now passes WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Their YouTube covers' views range from 4k to 350k, I wouldn't say this makes them relevant enough as YT cover artists. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I'm arguing more on WP:GNG grounds, adding that to the other reasons. /Julle (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Julle. WP:GNG and parts of WP:NMUSIC met. BabbaQ (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After extended time for discussion, there is a consensus that this material should be kept in some form, with most opinions to that effect being that the article should be kept as it is. Although a move to a different title has been proposed, it was not the focus of the discussion. This might be separately proposed, but I would note that from the text of the article, some attempts failed through sheer luck, and not through the success of an effort to stop the attack. bd2412 T 20:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsuccessful attacks related to schools[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unsuccessful_attacks_related_to_schools&action=edit

List of unsuccessful attacks related to schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:LISTN. I can't find much that discusses unsuccessful school attacks as a group specifically. There doesn't really seem to be much encyclopedic value to this one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I (apparently - had totally forgotten about it until today!) created this article in 2011 when I split the unmanageably-long List of school-related attacks into component articles (also including List of attacks related to post-secondary schools, List of attacks related to secondary schools, and List of attacks related to primary schools). No real opinion on whether this belongs as an article, just providing some history about how it got here. If it gets deleted, you may wish to consider merging the content back into List of school-related attacks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Foiled attacks generally get transient, routine news coverage and are never heard of again. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. None of the cases are enough to get their own articles and if one wants information about any of said cases, it's convenient for all of the information about said case and other cases that might interest them to be in one place. KLR (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument to make. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nevertheless it is useful, as shown by the # of page views. Incidents in list are reliably sourced. Looks to me as though User:Fluffernutter made a useful split an unwieldy list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You're just repeating WP:ITSUSEFUL. And the sourcing isn't the problem (which would be an issue for improvement, not deletion); the problem is that this list doesn't meet WP:LISTN (as far as I've been able to tell; if you can demonstrate otherwise, that would be great, but your comment doesn't do that). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Specifically, the topic itself is useful, which is why the topic is notable. Unsuccessful school attacks are broadly studied and discussed in an attempt to figure out how to stop these sort of attacks. School attacks are somewhat unusual among mass-violence in that people involved know each other, at least sort of. Key findings are the importance of forming relationships with all students and quick, grounded reaction by staff. As there continue to be more unsuccessful attacks over the coming years I expect the list to grow and perhaps it will lead to new discoveries on what to do. Because a great deal of safety advice is ignored by students, it is important that this article remain on the internet. Descriptions of events that occured in the recent past in my opinion are less likely to be ignored than the safety advice. Maybe someday, Joe Shmoe will read it, infer with his own mind on what to do, and make a difference in the real world.

Additionally, it perpetuates a fallacy to only list the "successful" attacks on WP, as if only the point of view of the attacker matters. These "unsuccessful" attacks perhaps should be renamed List of successfully stopped attacks related to schools--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Deacon Vorbis. There is a literature on the subject. This 2018 piece from Education Week argues that is is an important subject to which more attentin should be paid, Thwarted School Shooting Plans Don't Get Much Attention. Here's How That Affects School Safety Debates. It has links to other articles on the subject. Here: [24] is a search on preventing them, the advice covers the sort of prevention that took place in the incident in the list, alert students and school employees reported weapons caches, threats and so forth to school employees. There is more than enough coverage of this topic in news media and professional literature to create an article on ways to prevent school shootings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "There is more than enough coverage ... to create an article on ways to prevent school shootings." That's not the same as this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge - Third party sources are given. The information is reliable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Move per my explanation above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Puzzled to understand where Epiphyllumlover wants to move this.

• Revisiting, I want to note that we have many articles and lists about violent crimes that did not happen: 2000 millennium attack plots, Category:Failed terrorist attempts in New York City, List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11, List of unsuccessful assassinations, List of attempted assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War and similar. Not to mention all of the articles about things that never happened in Category:Proposals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is invalid justification for deletion. Foiled attacks in schools is a legitimate subject, and it has been discussed in sources as a whole (cited here, here, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If anyone wants to merge may seek a consensus on talk page. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of school shootings in the United States by death toll[edit]

List of school shootings in the United States by death toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially a duplicate of List of school shootings in the United States, but arbitrarily restricted to incidents with at least 4 deaths. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Duplicated list but only includes shootings with over 4 deaths. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 17:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I would like to know how you can compile this list without requiring an extensive effort from "List of school shootings in the United States" which is sorted by date.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st remove the non-notable/signicant shootings from the article (that would reduce it by at least 50%) then convert it into one table, alternatively, add a paragraph/section that discusses the shooting with the largest/er number of casualties. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then this AfD should have been opened after renovating "List of school shootings in the United States" extensively. It is a wrong order. Could anyone voting Delete explain how to pick the highest death incident from the current "List of school shootings in the United States"? It is virtually impossible.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Death toll of school shootings (e.g. all the news stories - "deadliest school shooting", "Nth deadliest school shooting) is obviously a notable intersection of school shootings. As long as List of school shootings in the United States is formatted in a way that isn't sort-able by death toll, then this article is not redundant fork. Should List of school shootings in the United States become sort-able (seems to entail putting it all in one list without the era section breaks) - then I'm amendable to changing my !vote. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not a duplicate, it is a shorter list of a specific subgroup, arranged in an order users will find useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, another concern is the arbitrary nature of inclusion in this list (4 or more deaths), why not double figures only, or 3 or more? where are the sources that back up 4 as the appropriate number? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ps. the sort of thing that is required for WP:LISTN (as is sources that discuss (part of) the group).Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed the listing criteria from "four or more victims" to "the worst 25" (actual number is 27).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's still just as arbitrary. Why not 30 instead of 27? or 42? or 50? Even worse, now it's an unsourced claim (on top of "worst" being WP:POV, but that's a minor point) – there's no way to ever verify that something hasn't been missed. And it's still ultimately a duplicate of the information at the main list. This reduces maintainability even further. If you think it's really that vital that people be able to pick out the highest-death toll shootings, then the main list can be worked into a single table (which might be a good idea anyway). Making a separate list that duplicates the information in another every time some idiosyncrasy of the main list prevents someone from gleaning one facet as efficiently as possible is a bit asinine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (Full disclosure, I just reverted the change as unsourced). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Top 10", "Top 25", "Top 100", "four or more victims" and so on are inherently all arbitrary not backed by any source. It is ridiculous to request a source for the number. The number is determined by a consensus which number is the best suited for a list. The arbitrary number cannot be a reason for AfD.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC) See Deadliest Mass Shootings in Modern US History Fast Facts (not limited to school shootings) by CNN. Why does this article list eight or more victims? It is because CNN arbitrarily determined that the number is the best suited for the list, not too long and not too short.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed - that's a content issue to be discussed in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, what's unsourced is that the 25 listed attacks are indeed the deadliest 25 and that none have been missed (even as of a particular date). That sort of claim does require a source. And that still misses the point that it's an arbitrary cutoff point to duplicate material from a list that already exists. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, mmmm, interesting, so we dont need any sources as the no. is inherently arbitrary? well here are some more lists relating to school shootings that im sure will be useful/of interest, look forward to them being created: "List of School Shootings in the US by number of perpetrators", List of US School Shootings by State", List of US School Shootings by Size of School", "List of US School Shootings by Size of Community", "List of US School Shootings by no. of Injuries". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The best place for this table is at the start of List of school shootings in the United States, as a kind of tabular form of lead section, highlighting the most significant shootings in the article. Retaining it as a seperate article is confusing and makes it less likely people will find the information they are looking for.--Pontificalibus 15:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE - We can make sortable tables anyway on the List of school shootings in the United States. Otherwise it is just WP:LISTCRUFT. Acnetj (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable subject that significantly differs from the other one. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This one could be merged with the other article without any hassle, consider that when most people want to see the deadliest shootings they want to see the top ones, not the bottom ones, you only need the 10 deadliest (or maybe 20), making it easier to maintain. Garlicolive (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per E.M.Gregory. In addition merging to nominated article make it too long so it isnot usefule alternative.Hispring (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merging would restrict to even more than 4. wumbolo ^^^ 23:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Zubieri[edit]

Nabeel Zubieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that Nabeel Zuberi, linked above, is a redirect to a show on which the subject is an actor, Suno Chanda. Nabeel Zubieri is an article on that person. I assume one is correct and one is not, but I don't know which is which - only that one should redirect to the other, if the article is kept. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not necessary to nominate every actor article just because they fails basic GNG. In Pakistan you will never find RS for Biographies. Nabeel has an extensive modeling career and has acted in 3 serials and 1 film in span of two years so in this way, this is not the case of WP:TOO SOON. Also two of his roles are significent, i.e, in Suno Chanda and Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hai. 122.8.44.102 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — 122.8.44.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabeel Zuberi - it looks like a duplicate AfD on a duplicate article.PRehse (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete same as my comment @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabeel Zuberi - No evidence Zuberi played a significant role in shows listed in the article and fails WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. A "contrived" case at best. Britishfinance (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete whether this is Fancruft or PROMO it fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wesley[edit]

Mark Wesley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:BIO. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable disk jockey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an outstanding or significant figure even in his field. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will Gray[edit]

Will Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary sources only, except a few passing mentions. Searching did not find significant independent coverage in RS. Major contributor is a SPA, probably with a COI. MB 14:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject does appear to have been awarded membership of the very select Inner Magic Circle. It's just possible that that might be deemed suitable under WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]